The Sikh Bulletin

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Sikh Bulletin cyq-vYswK 539 March-April 2007 Yes, isn’t it I mean the way you made the wrong assertion and drew the expectedly wrong conclusion. > Right on both counts, but philosophy itself cannot be equated with the truth either. It’s possible for philosophical postulates to be rational and logically consistent and yet be untrue. Neither opinion polls nor unsubstantiated philosophical postulates can “determine what is true or not”. > Even if it is a matter of philosophy, how does that make it true (or the truth) > I have tried, and as best as I can get (which I concede may not be enough) I see nothing there that focuses on the unshorn hair as of such prime importance, if at all. Let me for the moment accept that a proper understanding of the core message of the SGGS would induce me (convince me) that the unshorn hair is important (nay, mandatory). That would hold true for all Sikhs (and non-Sikhs) alike: yet so many have cut their hair. Why Because, we have failed to focus on the message of the SGGS, and instead been content on the insistence of the “roop”. That is what I have said in my article, that “The focus of the Sikh Community, if it is to maintain its claim to possessing a universal faith, should therefore be on expounding upon, and promoting, the virtues and beauty of the ‘spiritual truths’ of the AGGS.” As for the rest of the paragraph where you wrongly “extend” my logic a little further (ashtrays, smoking, liquor, etc) it is too absurd and childish for me to offer comment, beyond saying: It may bring thunderous clapping and cheers from believers who would have shut their minds to a rational argument, but it can only bring about peals of laughter from the objective reader. > Again your lines quoted immediately above refer: You make two statements defining universal as you see it, then accuse me of making adjustments (to that definition), and finally make the erroneous declaration that “By doing so you are declaring to the world that our Gurus were not perfect in their thought and actions. Some of the things that they did are obsolete and not applicable now”. What Where > Where in your (earlier) response did you mention “the need to understand the philosophy of SGGS” It may be that whatever you say is based on your understanding of the SGGS, but you did not mention the NEED (by all) to understand the philosophy. In any case it is just YOUR understanding, not proof; it could be wrong. Look at all the experts disagree over the interpretation of so many key verses of the SGGS and over certain concepts of the faith. > Sure you don’t base it on any opinion poll. You base it on YOUR understanding of the SGGS – the opinion of one! The rest of that paragraph is no more than statements of opinion. > Really Look at the truckloads in Punjab, all sabat soorat and members of the rogues’ gallery to boot. Is that what people expect What exactly does it mean to live like a Sikh And where, or how many, are those Sikhs who are living such lives Sure, there are good sabat soorat Sikhs worthy of emulation, but they must be a minority; not many visible. Presumably living like a Sikh must mean living the life of a good human, possessing many of the virtues we so admire in good people. Which brings me to your next statement: > ‘A belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is a universal belief (religion) because it is a universal belief (religion). Universality of (this IPU religion) is not a numerical but philosophical matter. You don’t have to make any adjustments to make it universal.’ I hope you get my point. Says who There are so many non-Sikhs, for example, who would fit the bill, decent human beings worthy of praise and emulation. > K. T. F. of N. A. Inc. 3524 Rocky Ridge Way, El Dorado Hills, CA. 95762 18
The Sikh Bulletin cyq-vYswK 539 March-April 2007 Yes, assuming that by looking “like a Sikh” you mean having unshorn hair. But for you “this is absolutely wrong as if it is true then we accuse our Gurus of superimposing this appearance on their philosophy”. Why How do you arrive at this inference / conclusion > Wrong. The so-called idyllic Punjab I referred to was in relation to the sabat soorat appearance; I said nothing about them living in the true spirit of Sikhism. They had their fair share of rogues and good men. In relation to the physical appearance the question still remains: What went wrong > That’s a pretty wild and harsh accusation. You care to elaborate Finally, when a man begins to use derogatory terms like “termites” you know he has lost his argument, and when a man of faith uses such terms you know that faith has no reasonable response to reason. It is not enough to say “I believe” or “according to my understanding”, or some such phrase, and then expect the statement following this to be accepted as the truth. It merely reflects an opinion. By the way what are you going to do with those Sikhs who trim their beards Or smoke Or consume alcohol Or do not ever pray And all those others who will fall short of your definition of Sikh (something you did not explicitly spell out) Add all these and they constitute the majority of those who consider themselves Sikh. Does this mean that, with 80% youths who are non-keshadhari and 95% youths on drugs in your village, it is no longer a Sikh majority village Have you told them that In any case this discussion is not progressing rationally and I will not be responding any further. Should S. Shergill decide to publish the discussion in sequence the readers can decide for themselves what they wish to make of it. Thank you. Gur Fateh. Dr Sarjeet Singh Sidhu, Ipoh, Malaysia, 28 March 2007 Dear Hardev Singh Ji This is in regard to views of S Gurtej Singh published in last issue of Sikh Bulletin. This is in regard to his comments about what he calls “order of Khalsa”. What is this order of Khalsa and when was it created He has called it the “finished product of the Sikh movement” created by Guru Gobind Singh. Does this mean that the Sikh movement from the first Guru to the ninth Guru was raw or unfinished What is the difference between a Sikh who followed and lived during the times of Guru Nanak and the Sikhs who were a part of what he calls the order of Khalsa Thanks, Jarnail Singh, Australia Dear S. Hardev Singh jee Shergill, Editor-in-Chief, The Sikh Bulletin (USA). Waheguru jee ka Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh On several occasions, definition of a "Sikh" has been shared by you through the columns of The Sikh Bulletin. In the light of The Sikh Reht Maryada (SGPC), The Sikh Gurdwaras Act 1925, The Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act 1971 and the amending Notification No.936 dated 9 October 2003, requirement of "Keshas" is essential. Even it equally applies to a "Sahajdhari Sikh". As otherwise, a person is "Patit" or apostate. Before publishing this correspondence in the next Issue, please also take confirmation from someone in Malaysia that Dr. Sarjeet Singh Sidhu, the resident of IPOH is a recognizable "Keshadhari Sikh". I, being a J. P. (Justice of the Peace) appointed by the NSW Government, in respect of "Jarnail Singh Gill" the resident of Sydney Metropolitan, I hereby affirm that he is a Keshadhari Sikh, and that I know him for the last five years. At the end, it is my humble request that in future, whenever any Article on Sikhism and Sikhs is published, the Author/Writer must be a Sikh in conformity with the name of the Periodical: THE "SIKH" BULLETIN - (including The Sikh Review, Abstracts of Sikh Studies, Sikh Virsa, The Sikh Messenger, Sikh Phulwari, etc). With best wishes, Gurmit Singh, J. P. (Sydney, NSW - Australia) Gurmit Singh ji: We went through the same exercise several times in 2004 during the conference in Sydney. Following definition of a Sikh is from Sikh Reht Maryada published by Dharam Parchar Committee of SGPC in English in December 2000, p.7: Article 1 Any human being who faithfully believes in (i) One Immortal Being, (ii) Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Guru Gobind Singh, (iii) The Guru Granth Sahib, (iv) The utterances and teachings of the ten Gurus and (v) the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru, and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion, is a Sikh. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, The Unabridged Edition defines believe as: “to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the K. T. F. of N. A. Inc. 3524 Rocky Ridge Way, El Dorado Hills, CA. 95762 19
Page 1 and 2: The Sikh Bulletin cyq-vYswK 539 Mar
Page 17: The Sikh Bulletin cyq-vYswK 539 Mar

The Sikh Bulletin

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?